The numbers don't lie. Bitcoin dominated in Q2. We’re discussing all-time historic performance, billions pouring into corporate coffers, even ETF volumes that shout institutional interest. Do not take my word for it, just take a peek at The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and The New York Times. What do you see? A deafening silence. WSJ churned out a measly two articles. The FT and NYT, a marginally less mortifying 11 pieces each.

It's not like these publications are unaware. They know Bitcoin exists. So, what gives? Are they just hopelessly behind the curve? Or is something more insidious at play?

I think a few things are going on here. It’s a bad confluence of bureaucratic inertia, risk aversion, and the poor understanding of Bitcoin – at its core. Let's break it down.

Consider these powerfully-connected and funded media outlets like colossal oil tankers. They're slow to turn, resistant to change. After all, they’ve spearheaded their reputations and business models on the lawn of traditional finance. Bitcoin threatens that. Because it threatens the core assumptions that their kingdoms are built on. Accepting Bitcoin is accepting that the old ways aren’t the best ways, or at least the only ways. That’s a hard pill for any organization to choke down.

Institutional Inertia: Like a Tanker

Then there's the risk factor. Bitcoin is volatile. It's still relatively new. Regulators are circling like hawks. A bad headline on Bitcoin misfire represents a far greater danger to these outlets. They are much more worried about this than losing a good story. It’s the old “better safe than sorry” default. In a world where technology is changing fast, the biggest risk of all is the risk of playing it safe.

Risk Aversion: Playing It Safe

Finally, there's the plain and simple misunderstanding of Bitcoin's technology. The truth is, most journalists at those publications just don’t understand it. To them, it’s something that is complicated, confusing, and dangerous by nature. Even more, they haven’t taken the time to understand the revolutionary, underlying blockchain technology. They ignore its potential for mass decentralization and its long-term effects on the global financial system. They are tech-blinded. This isn’t to be too conspiratorial or malicious, it’s rather a byproduct of the specialization that is quite common in today’s journalism. If you don’t get something, you’re not going to report on it – and you’re going to ignore it.

Misunderstanding: Tech Blindness Reigns

Bitcoin Perception calls this an "ostrich strategy." Second, burying your head in the sand and hoping this whole Bitcoin phenomenon will simply die and go away. It won't.

This absence of coverage fosters a perilous information asymmetry. Those who are in the know already – the early adopters, the tech-savvy investors – have a massive leg up. Instead, they’re taking advantage of the opportunity that Bitcoin’s growth has given them. In the meantime, the rest of the world remains in the dark or gets misled by disinformation.

This is especially concerning for institutional investors. They have a fiduciary duty even to explore every positive value investment opportunity. Just looking the other way on Bitcoin after that exceptionally well-performing Q2 would be just plain irresponsible. It may even be considered a failure of your fiduciary duty. Consider our pension funds, endowments and other large institutions, who depend on these same elite media outlets for their market intelligence. They're being actively disadvantaged by this silence. They are losing ground from a smart growth perspective and are missing some big wins.

In many ways, it’s a contemporary re-telling of the blind men and the elephant parable. What happens is that each publication only observes a narrow slice of the overall picture. Because of this failure, they fail to see the real elephant in the room.

Let's address the elephant in the room. Perhaps the largest factor complained about as the reason for steering clear of Bitcoin is its ties to criminal behavior. The narrative goes: Bitcoin is anonymous, therefore it's used for drug trafficking, money laundering, and other illicit activities.

In the same vein, while Bitcoin is a tool for illegal behavior, so is cash, gold and just about any other asset. The truth is, Bitcoin transactions are pseudonymous, but not anonymous. Since they’re all recorded on a single, publicly accessible ledger they can be traced by law enforcement easily. In reality, research has consistently found that the overwhelming share of Bitcoin transactions are above board.

So, what's the solution? It's not about blindly shilling Bitcoin. It's about responsible, balanced, and informed coverage.

Outlets such as Forbes, CNBC, and even Fortune, are already beating them to the punch. They’re doing a better job of digging deeper, giving both sides of the story a fair shake and making the effort to understand the Bitcoin community. There’s one thing that needs to occur – the WSJ, FT, and NYT need to get up to speed. Their silence on these important issues is not only a tremendous disservice to their readers, it’s a threat to market efficiency and innovation.

The future of finance, the real “fin-tech” revolution, is being written at this very moment. Are they going to turn a blind eye and be against it, or are they going to engage and get involved and be part of it?

This is a myth.

While Bitcoin can be used for illegal purposes, so can cash, gold, and pretty much any other asset. The reality is that Bitcoin transactions are pseudonymous, not anonymous. They're recorded on a public ledger, making them traceable by law enforcement. In fact, studies have shown that the vast majority of Bitcoin transactions are not related to criminal activity.

A Call to Action: Change is Needed

So, what's the solution? It's not about blindly shilling Bitcoin. It's about responsible, balanced, and informed coverage.

Here's what the elite media needs to do:

  • Hire dedicated crypto reporters: Bring in experts who understand the technology and can provide insightful analysis.
  • Consult with industry experts: Don't rely on outdated information or biased sources.
  • Adopt a more balanced approach: Acknowledge the risks, but also highlight the potential benefits.
  • Stop perpetuating outdated narratives: Debunk the myths and focus on the facts.

Outlets like Forbes, CNBC, and even Fortune, are already doing a better job. They're providing more extensive coverage, offering a more balanced perspective, and engaging with the Bitcoin community. But the WSJ, FT, and NYT need to catch up. Their silence is not only a disservice to their readers, it's a threat to market efficiency and innovation.

The future of finance is being written right now. Are they going to ignore it, or are they going to be a part of it?